When I said that I'm all for possession of drug-dealer's cars, illicit funds in bank accounts etc, it was on the assumption that he or she had been found guilty of drug-dealing. Likewise the difference between a drunk-driver and a driver under the influence (or not, as the state may be). Having said that there are always exceptions such as the fithy-rich drug-dealer who can pay lawyers to keep him out of court long enough to salt away his funds and disappear along with them. In any case, whether it is drug-dealing or alimony, if the circumstances demand the court can freeze funds, and if the offence is serious enough keep the accused behind bars until the case is heard. This is the situation, I believe, in both countries and in general terms it is fair enough, although like every law in existence, it is subject to abuse. One of the biggest problems with the law in both our countries is the excessive use of precedents, but there is something wrong with your system if the siezure of goods by the courts to prevent the real bad guys from getting away with their crimes has led to arbitary siezure of cars by and for city officials because the driver had a drink or a friend left a stem of marijuana on the back seat. (And there is something wrong with the system in my country when they legislate against selling beef on the bone because there is a one-in-one-billion chance of catching CJD, whereas cigatettes claim 200,000 lives per year, yet they will not even allow harmless marijuana to be prescribed by doctors! Harmless - toxicity-wise - I'm not advocating driving a car or using machinery while high on anything.) Has anyone considered the moral position of getting rid of precendents and judging each and every case on its own merits? Perhaps if they did, the USA might really be the land of the free, instead of a country that prohibits an open wine bottle in a parked car, yet allows its citizens to pack a gun on crowded streets. I know which is the most dangerous.